Chiding the chiefs

Political leaders have undermined military morale
by Lt. Gen (retd) Harwant Singh

Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon were known to be impolite and in fact abrasive in dealing with the higher command of the military. They took little note of their advice on strategic issues, which finally led to the military high command becoming reticent. There occurred a yawning gap in the inter-action between them and the political executive. This was to eventually lead to the 1962 debacle with China and national humiliation.

Jaswant Singh’s upbraiding of the Chief of Army Staff on the latter’s clarifications during a TV interview on the Chinese patrols crossing the Line of Actual Control (LAC ) along the Tibet border is nothing new. Political leaders, even when holding positions in government, often indulge in criticising serving chiefs.

They are quite oblivious of the effect it would have on future interaction with the chiefs and of course the fall out on morale and discipline of the defence services. Jaswant comes from a family with a strong military tradition and is a former military officer from a famous cavalry regiment. Above all, he has been a defence minister. Therefore, his using intemperate language against the COAS for saying nothing more than what his minister said on the issue, is rather inexplicable.
When at a press briefing, during the mobilisation of the Indian defence forces, consequent to the attack on the Indian Parliament, the then COAS, General Padmanabhan., responding to a searching question from the press on the possible use of nuclear weapons by an opponent, gave an unambiguous, forthright and pointed reply.

It was entirely in line with the ‘Indian Nuclear Doctrine’ as spelled out in the document on the subject, prepared by the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB). The document is unclassified and in the public domain. More over, the Defence Minister himself had aired similar views a few days earlier Yet the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, went ahead to chide him and term his handling of the subject at the press conference as ‘cavalier.’

One cannot help but recall the earlier sordid and disgraceful act of sacking of the Naval Chief by the government, consequent to the machinations by the then defence secretary (who himself was severely indicted by the Delhi High Court in another case), and the gross mishandling of the case by George Fernandes.

But the present Defence Minister, A.K. Antony, is surely of a different genre. Yet he too thought no better of rebuking the naval chief on the latter’s objecting to Russia substantially jacking up the already agreed upon price, and paid for in 2004, for the Gorshkov aircraft carrier being refitted in Russia. The aircraft carrier is now expected to be delivered in 2011 instead of 2008, the date earlier agreed upon.

Obviously, our political class is not schooled in the handling of such delicate matters and the possible fallout, on the rank and file, of their publicly denigrating the service chiefs.
No wonder an army commander openly flouts his chief ’s orders and refuses to accept his posting, from one army command to another, kicking up much dust in the process. Therefore, when a TV anchor, at prime time, with two major-generals (Ashok Metha and Afzal Karim) in attendance, commenting on the dust kicked up by the army commander under reference, called the Chief of the Army Staff as ‘Thief of the Army Staff,’ it came as no surprise.

Military ethos does not permit even the ticking-off an appointment holder in the presence of his command, no matter how high-ranking an officer or dignitary attempting to do so may be. This public rebuke of the Chief of the Army Staff gravely undermines his position.

In reply to another question, in the same interview, General Padmanabhan quite rightly brought out the fact that keeping the morale of the army high was his business. With his own position discredited by his Minister, he would have found it difficult to sustain the morale of troops.
The place of the Chief of Army Staff is unique in the military scheme of things and he must be seen, by his officers and men, as infallible and beyond reproach. Any attempt to openly denigrate him is bound to seriously compromise his position and adversely affect the implicit faith and confidence the Service must have in him.

Admittedly the Indian political class, unlike in most other countries, has no military background or schooling in good manners, but self-education on matters military is possible; definitely by the defence minister, at the very least.

This brings us to the issue of service chiefs airing their views on issues directly related to their job and troops. When the British government decided to send troops for the invasion of Iraq, to join American forces, the Chief of Defence Staff of Britain, Sir Michael Boyce demanded an unequivocal statement from his government that the invasion of Iraq was lawful.

The armed forces were given an assurance that the conflict would not be illegal. Without it, Boyce felt, “his troops could have laid themselves open to charges of war crimes.” In India, the COAS asking for such an assurance from the Government before moving troops to Sri Lanka would have kicked up a storm.

Finally, Winston Churchill, speaking on the subject said: “The Indian Army is not so much an arm of the executive branch, as it is of the Indian people. Military professionals have the duty and obligation to ensure that the people and political leaders are counselled and alerted to the needs and necessities of military life. This cannot be done by adhering to the notion of the military profession as a silent order of monks isolated from the political realm.” 


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080328/edit.htm#6